Sometime in the late 17th or early 18th century the fèileadh beag (the small kilt), or filibeg, or philabeg, using a single width of cloth worn hanging down below the belt came into use, becoming popular throughout the Highlands and northern Lowlands by 1746, although the great kilt or belted plaid continued to be worn. The small kilt or philibeg is a development of the great kilt, being essentially the bottom half of the great kilt.

A letter written by Ivan Baillie in 1768 and published in the Edinburgh Magazine in March 1785 states that the garment people would recognize as a kilt today was invented in the 1720s by Thomas Rawlinson, a Quaker from Lancashire. After the Jacobite campaign of 1715 the government opened the Highlands to outside exploitation, and Rawlinson went into partnership with Ian MacDonnell, chief of the MacDonnells of Glengarry to manufacture charcoal from the forests near Inverness and smelt iron ore there. The belted plaid worn by the Highlanders he employed was too "cumbrous and unwieldy" for this work, so, together with the tailor of the regiment stationed at Inverness, Rawlinson produced a kilt which consisted of the lower half of the belted plaid worn as a "distinct garment with pleats already sewn". He wore it himself, as did his business partner, whose clansmen then followed suit.[5]

It has been suggested that there is evidence of Highlanders wearing only the bottom part of the belted plaid before this,[2] possibly as early as the 1690s,[2] but Rawlinson's is the earliest documented example with sewn-in pleats, a distinctive feature of the kilt worn today.

The tailored kilt was adopted by the Highland regiments of the British Army, and the military kilt and its formalised accessories passed into civilian usage during the early 19th century and has remained popular ever since.[2]

The earliest extant example of a tailored kilt is from 1792 (currently in the possession of the Scottish Tartans Authority).[6]

Although there are 'Kilt Girls' who are nice to look at ... but I would never do ...

So . . . mirage vs. sea harrier? Equally as potent? Not a an aircraft expert, but I ask because the dude commented that "they had the mirage with a higher top speed, 50% higher ceiling, and longer range missiles" or some such.

So . . . mirage vs. sea harrier? Equally as potent? Not a an aircraft expert, but I ask because the dude commented that "they had the mirage with a higher top speed, 50% higher ceiling, and longer range missiles" or some such.

The Brit pilots did well not because of the Harrier, but for two reasons:

1) Because they were well-trained and experienced.

and

2) Because those Harriers had just received new models of all-aspect Sidewinder missiles. The Argentinian missiles would've only been able to fire from a rear aspect while the newer ones on the Harriers could fire from all-around. Big difference in firing envelope and ability to hit the target.

Harriers are absolutely not ideal for air-to-air engagements. The lack of afterburner is a huge deal, as is being able to go supersonic to a lesser extent. In WVR dogfights, the extra acceleration that an afterburner provides can give a massive advantage to pilots who know how to use that extra energy advantage.

You'll also note from the video that they describe all three kills coming from the Sidewinder missiles they fired. Those new versions allowed them to fire from all kinds of bad angles, which they previously hadn't been able to, and still get hits.

The Mirage III and Kfir (Israeli version sold to Argentina) were a bit older but still capable at the time. They were supersonic fighters with afterburners, and therefore posed a big threat to them. They were only every armed with similar infrared homing AtA missiles like those on the Harrier, so the pilot's suggestion that they were greatly out-ranged is an exaggeration. The Argentinian missiles also were much less capable than the RN's newly acquired ones when it came to tracking and hitting their targets.

Lastly, the pilot mentioned shooting Skyhawks. The A-4 Skyhawk was a subsonic (no afterburner) ground attack aircraft. Due to the limited amounts of pylons on those old birds, they were often only loaded with air-to-ground ordnance and no AtA missiles. Even if they did have Sidewinders, they would've been the older less capable ones.

I'd say it was a matter of the British pilots having more time and training in their aircraft, mixed with their missile capability advantage, which was the big decider in the Falklands air battles. Despite the limitations of the Harrier.

Sorry to the Harrier fans, but I always thought it was an overrated niche vanity piece. The only reason the Marines bought them was so they could fly a few off the short helo assault ships, but we would've been better off spending that money on more attack helos to put on them, for the same short-range ground support role, and let the Navy do their fixed wing bombing (with better payloads and numbers) from the CVs per usual. Misplaced spending IMO, but the USMC has often been bad about their equipment procurement.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum